JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. R. N. Sahay, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Yashvardhan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

3. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order of termination dated 12.01.2010 passed by the respondent no. 6 and a further relief has been sought to reinstate the petitioner with all back wages. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the appellate authority had dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner vide order dated 26.06.2010 as contained in Annexure- 9 of the writ petition, but due to inadvertence, the same was not challenged in the writ petition. Accordingly, one interlocutory application being I.A. No. 1452 of 2021 was filed challenging the appellate order also. The I.A. was allowed and the interlocutory application was taken to be a part of the writ petition for future reference.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that accordingly the order of termination dated 12.01.2010 as well as appellate order dated 26.06.2010 are under challenge in this writ petition.

Submissions of the petitioner

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was earlier charge-sheeted vide letter dated 03.09.2007 on account of absence from duty with effect from 24.07.2007 without permission/information to the competent authority and upon enquiry the same resulted in order of punishment dated 16.10.2007 and by the same order the petitioner was permitted to resume his duty with effect from 18.10.2007. He submits that thereafter another show-cause was issued vide memo no. 518 dated 02.06.2009 referring to earlier absenteeism including absenteeism from 24.07.2007 and it was alleged that in spite of permission granted to the petitioner to join duty with effect from 18.10.2007, the petitioner had not joined his duty. The learned counsel submits that the impugned order dated 12.01.2010 refers to earlier charge-sheet dated 03.09.2007 for which the petitioner was already punished and accordingly, the impugned order of termination dated 12.01.2010 is a piece of complete non-application of judicial mind to the charges levelled against the petitioner vide memo No. 518 dated 02.06.2009.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there was sufficient reason for not resuming his duty with effect from 18.10.2007 as the petitioner had given application for joining on 06.12.2008 with a medical certificate indicating that he was suffering from mental upset from 12.10.2007 till 04.12.2008 and was sent for medical examination on 03.03.2009 and was found fit for joining duty and thereafter he was moving in the office of Respondent no. 5 and 6 but after three months show cause dated 02.06.2009 was issued.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the appeal against the order of termination dated 12.01.2010 was also dismissed vide another impugned order dated 26.06.2010. He submits that the appellate order is a non-speaking order.

8. The learned counsel submits that in view of the aforesaid submissions both the impugned orders are fit to be quashed and set-aside and the petitioner be reinstated in service with all back wages. The learned counsel has relied upon a judgement passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 5522 of 2007 decided on 23.12.2021 to submit that it has been held that a statutory appeal must be decided on merits by reasoned order.

Submissions of the Respondents

9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has submitted that absence of the petitioner without intimation to the authority is an admitted fact. Although the petitioner has not annexed the enquiry report, but the same has been annexed along with the counter-affidavit, which reflects that charges are admitted. He submits that in spite of repeated opportunities granted to the petitioner to mend his ways the peti